Ads
Earlier this month, former royal butler Paul Burrell made some controversial remarks regarding Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's absence from Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June. As we approach the second anniversary of "Megxit" in January 2020, Burrell has offered his perspective on how the Sussexes' non-attendance at the high-profile events may have exacerbated existing tensions within the royal family.
Burrell, who had an extensive career serving the royal household for over 30 years, primarily as Princess Diana's personal assistant, suggested that the decision to exclude Harry and Meghan from the televised segments of the Jubilee was justified. In a recent interview, he stated "I don't think they should have been at the main events. It was the Queen's moment and the working royals were there to support her. Their presence would have taken the shine off the Queen.” He went on to claim that their absence has only worsened the issues between the Sussexes and other senior members of the family.
Ads
According to Burrell, the rift that began with the couple's step back from royal duties in 2020 has intensified in the two years since. He commented that "it's unfortunate but I don't think the wounds have healed. Their non-attendance has added more salt to those wounds." Given Burrell's extensive first-hand knowledge of royal operations and family dynamics from his decades of service, his perspective holds significant weight. However, his latest remarks have understandably elicited mixed reactions.
Supporters of Harry and Meghan have criticized Burrell for unnecessarily stoking tensions at a sensitive time. But others value his insider insight, believing there is credibility to his assertion that not participating in the Jubilee celebrations may have exacerbated existing disagreements. Harry and Meghan were noticeably absent from all televised events over the Platinum Jubilee weekend in June, such as Trooping the Colour and the service of thanksgiving, instead opting for private lunches. Their choice to avoid the global spotlight during this monumental occasion marking the Queen's 70 years on the throne was likely to attract commentary.
Ads
With limited reconciliation between the Sussexes and the rest of the famiy in the two years since relocating to the US, Burrell posits that old wounds from their departure as senior working royals in 2020 remain unhealed. While the inner workings of Palace life remain privately unknown, Buckingham Palace did not publicly disagree with Burrell's analysis. As no official comment has been offered by the Sussex camp to counter his statements either, questions over the status of their complex family dynamics persist.
The temporary ceasefire seen over the Jubilee clearly could not resolve all issues. Burrell warns that further interventions risk inflaming cross-Atlantic tensions. Yet his predictions also raise debate as to whether more constructive dialogue between the parties could accelerate the healing process. Regardless, only time will truly tell if reconciliation is possible or if estrangement becomes cemented long-term.
Ads
In the two years since "Megxit", arguments have been made on both sides as to whether the Sussexes' choice to leave was reasonable or disrespectful to the Queen and institution. Public opinion also remains sharply divided. This anniversary serves as a reminder that their departure simultaneously empowered notions of modern monarchy while damaging family bonds, ensuring ongoing fascination with their narrative globally.
As the saga unfolds, comments such as Burrell's will persist in stoking discussion. I'd be interested to hear perspectives on whether signs of rapprochement are emerging, or if entrenched positions on both sides now risk long-term damage to relationships. Has enough time passed to foresee fuller reconciliation, or does ongoing criticism from figures like Burrell undermine progress? Civil debate on this complex royal saga will surely continue.
Post a Comment